Rearming SLBM or ICBM with conventional warheads

[DarthAmerica]

Another thing is that a CICBM would be an excellent anti-terrorist/asymetric warfare weapon. Asymetric threats tend to base themselves in remote locations or in areas where traditional military methods would cause too much collateral damage and limits the NCA/CINC in what they can do. Also unless you have forward deployed forces, your options to hit targets of opportunity are severly limited. Then there are the potential basing rights and/or logistical concerns for theater assets and overflight issues for CONUS or outside the theater assets which take hours to days to respond. Considering the intelligence capabilities of some of the alphabet agencies(which have blood on their hands BTW unless you think Russian organic SIGINT...nevermind...), we could have GF's Chechnyan example but at intercontinental distances.

In fact in the near future, more and more wars will start by having the diplomatic organizations formally declaring high profile targets who would otherwise be diplomatically untouchable as illegitimate and demanding surrender. After this point and a short ultimatum. If the target makes even the slightest mistake(5-30 min worth) in OPSEC. A CAV payload will be raining down on the recalcitrant military and political leadership of the nation/organization in question. This will be combined with PSYOPs before, during and after the strike to prevent a more broad conflict.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I'm not sure I'd want to get slapped on the head with a Toschka battlefield rocket. It would turn an Abrams into a 70 ton pile of scrap metal pretty easily.

...sigh. Did you have to say that? Why didnt you just threaten an Apricot payload? Actually Armor is a pretty easy prey from that aspect angle, for now. By hardend I mean HDBT. Dear Leader Type Pleasure Palace Stuff.

BTW, LOCAAS is a proposed CAV payload.

 

[gf0012-aust]

...sigh. Did you have to say that? Why didnt you just threaten an Apricot payload? Actually Armor is a pretty easy prey from that aspect angle, for now. By hardend I mean HDBT. Dear Leader Type Pleasure Palace Stuff.

BTW, LOCAAS is a proposed CAV payload.

well, when you said this:

But that assumes the target is in an area you are already covering. Sometimes threats appear in the darndest places. It also assumes relatively unhardened target.

I assumed you meant a mobile target. A "Dear Leader Type Pleasure Palace" is not the most mobile asset around - and its highly improbable that it will appear out of nowhere, appear unless they're using a humungous winnebago...

btw the Toschka has to be reprogrammed and have its targetting co-ords updated once they vectored the mobile phone.

So satellite-ident/permission/prosecution/kill was all in 10 minutes. If they'd had aerial assets in place then target mobility would have been even less of an issue. As it was, they were not going to pass up on the opportunity and took the shot.

 

[DarthAmerica]

btw the Toschka has to be reprogrammed and have its targetting co-ords updated once they vectored the mobile phone.

So satellite-ident/permission/prosecution/kill was all in 10 minutes. If they'd had aerial assets in place then target mobility would have been even less of an issue. As it was, they were not going to pass up on the opportunity and took the shot.

Just imagine it at the intercontinental level!


Off Topic...sort of:

Makes one wonder why Zarqawi and Osama are still alive. Their OPSEC cant be that good! Should be a JDAM/MLRS with their names written on them just waiting for the SIGINT birds to provide the data.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Fyi

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...RUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-WEAPON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking congressional approval for development of a new weapon able to strike distant targets an hour after they are detected, a newspaper reported on Monday.
The International Herald Tribune said the weapon would be a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident-2 missile and be part of a president's arsenal when considering a pre-emptive attack.
The report quoted military officials as saying it could be used to hit terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of weapons of mass destruction and other urgent threats.
General James Cartwright, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said the system would allow U.S. forces to attack targets conventionally and precisely and "limit the collateral damage".

The Pentagon would like the system available in two years, the report said.
But the program has run into resistance from lawmakers concerned it could increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Under the Pentagon plan, both non-nuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of the Trident-2 missile would be loaded on the same submarines.
"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," the newspaper quoted Senate Armed Services Committee member Jack Reed as saying.
"It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear," the Rhode Island Democrat said.
The House Armed Services Committees have asked the Bush administration to develop a plan to minimize the risk.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The report quoted military official...ig a kite from an SSBN let alone a trident 2.

 

[DarthAmerica]

it looks like this system would have a limited (though signifigant) use. For time sensitive anti terrorist targets it would be great. But in a large scale conventional conflict with a major nuclear power i wouldnt be launchig a kite from an SSBN let alone a trident 2.

Lets think about this one. What would be more limited. The nuclear tipped Tridents we never use that would certainly cause a nuclear war? Or conventional Tridents with the capabilities I described that could have been used against almost every advesary we have faced since the early 1980's? Lets see,

Libya

Lebanon

Iran OPM

Panama

Sudan

Somalia

Iraq ODS

Iraq ODF

Iraq OIF

Serbia OAF

Afghanistan OEF

Compare that to how often we have gone to war with major nuclear powers then ask how limited would an SSBN be with a mixed payload vs a purely nuclear one. Also note that these CSLBM attacks would cost only a fraction of the cost of a manned strike with bombers. Between 10 to 100 million in todays dollars depending on the severity of the strike.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I get your point. But you wouldnt say that the primary goal of the U.S. armed forces is the defence of the U.S. and its interests, and this would include the possibility of a large scale conventional conflict with a world power? The ADF has only ever fought once in the defence of Australia, it has fought in South Africa, western europe, the middle east (twice), Turkey, indonesia, malaysia, vietnam, korea, iraq, afghanistan and numerous peace keeping missions (to name a few) but its primary function is still the defence of Australia in a conventional conflict. So you would dissagree that a weapon that is useless (for reasons stated above) in achieving the primary goal of an armed forces can be called 'limited'?

 

[Big-E]

It looks like this system would have a limited (though signifigant) use. For time sensitive anti terrorist targets it would be great. But in a large scale conventional conflict with a major nuclear power i wouldnt be launchig a kite from an SSBN let alone a trident 2.

My concern would be (on top of mistaken nuclear launch) since the 4 Ohio conversions there are a very small number of boomers left. Converting Trident 2s on these existing boats lowers our nuclear deterent. As everyone knows boomers are the most survivable platform in any nuclear strike and to waste them in such a way is reckless. If they do it then make it land based, don't waste the Ohios. I am in much bigger favor of ramjet missiles as they are cheaper and can be deployed from any platform for quicker strike capability.

 

[Big-E]

Lets think about this one. What would be more limited. The nuclear tipped Tridents we never use that would certainly cause a nuclear war? Or conventional Tridents with the capabilities I described that could have been used against almost every advesary we have faced since the early 1980's? Lets see,

Libya

Lebanon

Iran OPM

Panama

Sudan

Somalia

Iraq ODS

Iraq ODF

Iraq OIF

Serbia OAF

Afghanistan OEF

Compare that to how often we have gone to war with major nuclear powers then ask how limited would an SSBN be with a mixed payload vs a purely nuclear one. Also note that these CSLBM attacks would cost only a fraction of the cost of a manned strike with bombers. Between 10 to 100 million in todays dollars depending on the severity of the strike.

Considering it costs over "2 billion" to arm an Ohio with Trident 2s I don't see how you can say it's cheaper.(New York Times " THE SUBMERGED COSTS OF TRIDENT 2 MISSILES "5/30/06) I think your target list here just goes to show that it's a waste of money to hit these dirt cheap targets with such a system. If you have such a system you would use it for hard to penetrate areas. With B-2s and the advent of ramjet missiles I say lets skip this one... it's just not worth it.:rwb

 

[DarthAmerica]

I get your point. But you wouldnt say that the primary goal of the U.S. armed forces is the defence of the U.S. and its interests, and this would include the possibility of a large scale conventional conflict with a world power? The ADF has only ever fought once in the defence of Australia, it has fought in South Africa, western europe, the middle east (twice), Turkey, indonesia, malaysia, vietnam, korea, iraq, afghanistan and numerous peace keeping missions (to name a few) but its primary function is still the defence of Australia in a conventional conflict. So you would dissagree that a weapon that is useless (for reasons stated above) in achieving the primary goal of an armed forces can be called 'limited'?

The US has an inherently offensive military. Our defense is through offense. Notice in those conflicts I mentioned, the US responds to threats against its interest through offensive action. The time it takes to get forces in place to conduct that offense encourages advesaries to set their goals on what can be accomplished during our deployment window. Hours to days for air and very light ground forces and months for heavy mechanized forces. They know full well that after our deployment cycles we will crush their military arms. But that is a price they are willing to pay to realise their political goals. By being able to respond almost immediately to a threat. We will be able to prevent larger scale conflicts and when its not possible to prevent larger conflict, we will buy more time.

Even against a major world power this would be a devastating form of attack. Pick and describe a hypothetical major world power and I could describe how this could actually prevent a larger war.

 

[DarthAmerica]

My concern would be (on top of mistaken nuclear launch) since the 4 Ohio conversions there are a very small number of boomers left. Converting Trident 2s on these existing boats lowers our nuclear deterent. As everyone knows boomers are the most survivable platform in any nuclear strike and to waste them in such a way is reckless. If they do it then make it land based, don't waste the Ohios. I am in much bigger favor of ramjet missiles as they are cheaper and can be deployed from any platform for quicker strike capability.

2 things. In order for the US to have deterence as its traditionally described. We need enough nuclear firepower to kill 25% of an offending population. That would take approximately 50 to 400 475kt warheads in the worse case against Russia or China respectively. We have many times more than that. Just one SSBN has almost that amount of firepower. Up to 192 warheads! Also the SSBNs is only one leg of the "old" triad. This program as proposed according to the latest official statements would have 2 missiles per SSBN converted to carry 4 E2(Enhanced Effectiveness) Warheads reducing the on board nuclear Tridents to 22.

Second, no air launched ramjet missile would ever be as responsive or as fast as an SLBM. Even if we maintained them on alert, the bomber would have to climb to altitude and then proceed to a launch position. An SLBM by contrast is always ready to be fired. And all it should and eventually will take is a grid coordinate. Then turn the key...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I know i keep harping on about China but its the only world power that i could see a tiny possablility of a large scale conflict with the US occuring. Scenario: Hard line government siezes power in bajing, announces full military support for N korea and acuses U.S. of increasing tensions on the peninsula. Declares taiwan a lost province and threatens war. Chinise/N korean nuclear & conventional forces go to maximum readiness and China mobilises. Troops move to staging areas behind the DMZ and the Chinese airforce/navy prepares to assault Taiwan and secure lanes through the south china sea. Pyonyang/bajing threatens strategic nuclear strikes on Japan and the U.S. mainland if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons (i know this is a crazy scenario). im not disputing the disputing systems awesome capability. Just the possibilty of it trigering a nuclear conflict unintentionally.

P.S. I know your millitary is essential agressive. you havent had a real threat to the mainland U.S. scince Pershing rode into mexico. That wasn't my point.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Considering it costs over "2 billion" to arm an Ohio with Trident 2s I don't see how you can say it's cheaper.(New York Times " THE SUBMERGED COSTS OF TRIDENT 2 MISSILES "5/30/06) I think your target list here just goes to show that it's a waste of money to hit these dirt cheap targets with such a system. If you have such a system you would use it for hard to penetrate areas. With B-2s and the advent of ramjet missiles I say lets skip this one... it's just not worth it.:rwb

I'd be careful to use the NYT personally. But I'll look for the article. The cost of the missiles themselves should be about 20 million or just under. And the targets arent dirt cheap when you consider not being about to hit them. How much money would have been saved if Saddam had be killed just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or what if his Armor columns had a swarm of LOCAAS rain out of the sky as they crossed the Kuwaiti border?

It cost millions to billions of dollars to forward deploy forces if you want to be responsive in a region. Then there is the chance that you lose an aircraft and/or crew. The political cost of that alone is staggering. There really isnt a comparison on cost. Just price for yourseld how much it would cost to deploy a Quartet of B-2's, F-22 Squadron for escort/sweep/CAP/strike and Support aircraft(AWACS, Tankers, Rivet Joint, G-Hawks ect.) to the Middle East or Asia for some contengency. And that assumes the target is fixed or stationary long enough to allow for a decent chance to strike. What if its a leadership cell in a motorcade? What if its a mobile ICBM launcher? What if its a SSK/SSN/SSBN in port preparing to sortie? Literally these threats are untouchable unless we are willing to use nukes or have forward deployed forces. The idea is to be time sensitive. This is a complimentary capability for hitting targets that have to be destroyed RIGHT NOW.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I know i keep harping on about China but its the only world power that i could see a tiny possablility of a large scale conflict with the US occuring. Scenario: Hard line government siezes power in bajing, announces full military support for N korea and acuses U.S. of increasing tensions on the peninsula. Declares taiwan a lost province and threatens war. Chinise/N korean nuclear & conventional forces go to maximum readiness and China mobilises. Troops move to staging areas behind the DMZ and the Chinese airforce/navy prepares to assault Taiwan and secure lanes through the south china sea. Pyonyang/bajing threatens strategic nuclear strikes on Japan and the U.S. mainland if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons (i know this is a crazy scenario). im not disputing the disputing systems awesome capability. Just the possibilty of it trigering a nuclear conflict unintentionally.

P.S. I know your millitary is essential agressive. you havent had a real threat to the mainland U.S. scince Pershing rode into mexico. That wasn't my point.

See the part of your scenario where you say the hardliners take over? Well right then and there, this capability when mature and deployed and combined with timely accurate intelligence could kill the hardliners as soon as they act. Should that fail, the logistics supporting any massed movement of military forces could be struck. Fuel Depot, Bridges ect.

Whether or not they threaten or actually conduct nuclear strikes is irrelevant to the equation. They have waved the nuclear sword in the air before through unofficial channels. China,s offensive nuclear potential is incredibly low and they dont even have a survivable deterent. They could wage nuclear terrorism. But only if they are willing to commit the biggest act of national suicide imaginable. A best case scenario for China would have 5 or fewer nukes if any actually making it to the USA in a scenario such as this.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Considering it costs over "2 billion" to arm an Ohio with Trident 2s I don't see how you can say it's cheaper.(New York Times " THE SUBMERGED COSTS OF TRIDENT 2 MISSILES "5/30/06) I think your target list here just goes to show that it's a waste of money to hit these dirt cheap targets with such a system. If you have such a system you would use it for hard to penetrate areas. With B-2s and the advent of ramjet missiles I say lets skip this one... it's just not worth it.:rwb

~2.2 billion x 16 SSBN USD was the program cost that we already paid for in the 1980's with money we will never get back for missiles we will hopefully never have to use. The total program cost for the conventional trident conversion is about half a billion USD or about ~5.2 million per E2 Warhead(96). Thats less than the price of 2 USAF F-22 Raptors or 6 F/A-18E's if you include the development cost.

What has to be remembered is that this is a requirement driven very mission specific asset that should reach IOC within 2 years and full operation by 2011. The "Fourth Leg" of deterence. Also CAV(Common Aero Vehicle) is a USAF/DARPA program and actually has a few key differences. It would have a more diverse payload to include penetrator, UAVs, SDB, WAASMs. CAV would be retargetable while in flight. Unlike the USN E2 warheads the CAV would take a little longer to make ready. About 24 hours. But after that could be launched within 2 hours and would reach their targets in 1 hour.

 

[Big-E]

~2.2 billion x 16 SSBN USD was the program cost that we already paid for in the 1980's with money we will never get back for missiles we will hopefully never have to use. The total program cost for the conventional trident conversion is about half a billion USD or about ~5.2 million per E2 Warhead(96).

And that 2.2 billion was in 84' dollars so you know inflation has driven the replacement cost thru the roof! So we won't be building anymore then?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

China,s offensive nuclear potential is incredibly low and they dont even have a survivable deterent. They could wage nuclear terrorism. But only if they are willing to commit the biggest act of national suicide imaginable. A best case scenario for China would have 5 or fewer nukes if any actually making it to the USA in a scenario such as this.

What exactly is a survivable deterent? You mentioned abouve the ability to kill 25% of the enemy population but is that equasion still relevent? Was it the measure used by SAC generals in the 50's to evaluate wether a nation could be sucsesfully eguaged in a nuclear war? Would any nation take action that would kill 10% of their population, or 5%? The U.S. could easily win a nuclear war with China (if its possible to win a nuclear war) and Gorgie could make china the biggest glow in the dark pancake on earth. But imagine the damage 5 500kt nukes could do. LA, New York, Chicago, Washington and San Francisico, there would be 50 million casualties. No one in their right mind would launch a first strike on the U.S. but i still think China would retaliate to a nuclear strike. And this is what i dont like about this idea. If the Chinese THOUGHT they were under nuclear attack they would launch while they still could. Look at it from their point of view. Your in a potential conflict with the US, several SLBM's are detected from launch positions in the western pacific, exactly the same thing that would happen in a first strike. Your about to loose your nuclear capability and at any moment your'e expecting thousands of MIRV's direct from the Dakota's that will kill hundreds of millions of your people. Would you launch your 50 odd rusty old BM's knowing that you will probably kill 30 million of the enemy? I agree compleatly that this weapon would be devistatingly usefull in an OEF/OIF or Desert Storm type of operation (as long as China and Russia had prior notice) but i think it only has a use in these types of operations. In a conflict with a nuclear power the use of an SLBM or ICBM could so easilly trigger a nuclear conflict, no matter what it was carrieing.

 

[DarthAmerica]

And that 2.2 billion was in 84' dollars so you know inflation has driven the replacement cost thru the roof! So we won't be building anymore then?

No thats 2.2 billion already paid for TOTAL PROGRAM COST divided by the number of D-5 equipped boats. In todays dollars the unit cost of a Trident D-5 missile as currently configured is about $30 million USD but we have already paid that. The proposed USN plan to convert that missile to use E2 warheads is about $20 million USD if its already nuclear armed. But if its a new build conventional round, the cost is probably still about $30 million USD for the Missile and $20 million for four E2 warheads for a total of about $50 million.(These are approx. estimates) That's dirt cheap. Especially compared to forward deploying a Carrier Strike Force or USAF AEF to a region to deal with a contingency and then they still arent fast enough to threaten some key targets in a timely manner. The next best timely thing we could do today is to deploy strategic bombers from CONUS, risking billions in A/C, risking human/political cost of losing aircrew and operating cost far greater than the price of a few Tridents.

Remember the requirement is Prompt Global Strike. This capability is designed to address that. No other options, except actual nukes, could do this better or cheaper.

 

[DarthAmerica]

What exactly is a survivable deterent?

The ability to retaliate after being struck. Right now today. There is a high probability that the USA could decapitate the PRC, destroy their nuclear forces and prevent a meaningful counter attack in a preemptive nuclear counter force attack.

You mentioned abouve the ability to kill 25% of the enemy population but is that equasion still relevent? Was it the measure used by SAC generals in the 50's to evaluate wether a nation could be sucsesfully eguaged in a nuclear war? Would any nation take action that would kill 10% of their population, or 5%?

The 25% figure is a legacy of the Cold War but I post that only to illustrate that we have way more than enough nukes even if we do reduce the Ohio's nuke SLBMs to 22 from 24. I cant say what nations will do. All I can say is what they have done in the past. And whatever they may do, we have to be prepared for it. In my briefings we had to discuss the enemies most likely coarses of action as well as their worse courses of action and be prepared to deal with all of it.

But imagine the damage 5 500kt nukes could do. LA, New York, Chicago, Washington and San Francisico, there would be 50 million casualties.

China probably could not hit targets that widely dispersed across the USA today with 5 RV's. Most likely they would concentrate their attack on west cost targets to achieve mass and assurance of at least some success. And it would not kill nearly 50 million. As far as imagining the damage. Katrina and Rita maybe a bit more are about the extent of it in terms of property damage except with a lot higher death toll.

If the Chinese THOUGHT they were under nuclear attack they would launch while they still could. Look at it from their point of view. Your in a potential conflict with the US, several SLBM's are detected from launch positions in the western pacific, exactly the same thing that would happen in a first strike. Your about to loose your nuclear capability and at any moment your'e expecting thousands of MIRV's direct from the Dakota's that will kill hundreds of millions of your people. Would you launch your 50 odd rusty old BM's knowing that you will probably kill 30 million of the enemy?

3 things. They dont have 50 weapons. Its more like 20-30. If they could detect the SLBMs, they would know they didnt come from the Dakota's. Also the PRC strategic missiles take time to be made ready to fire. A time measured in hours. Our Conventional Tridents when we get them, could possibly take these Chinese weapons out as they are being readied.